Full Version: More serious lie?
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 24 2003, 04:50 PM)
QUOTE
Why is this thread continuing? Bush didn't lie and if he did no one has proven it
Says who? You?
Bush had that line in his Cincinnati speech and it was removed. It worked it's way into several other speeches and it was removed. But they kept it in the SOTU speech for impact. It was not a true statement and just because it's acclaimed to the British, it doesn't make it any more true. They knew it was FALSE at least 3 months before the SOTU speech.
I'd say that qualifies as a lie regardless of who's judging it.
QUOTE
They knew it was FALSE at least 3 months before the SOTU speech.
Who knew it was false? Certainly not the British who still claim the information is accurate. I have not seen one shred of evidence that shows the President thought this information was untrue at the time of his speech. If you have seen evidence that supports your claim above please direct me to where I can view the evidence for myself (and saying you heard it from a politician who is a Democrat or on CNN doesnt count).
QUOTE(Raimi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:37 AM)
President Bush's exact words in the State of the Union address were "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was then, and is now 100% accurate.
actually the british LEARNED no such thing. blair said "our intelligence INDICATES" (you know the rest) meaning that they are not 100% positive but the intelligence points to that conclusion. by saying "they learned" bush was saying the bits were 100% positive he was trying to buy uranium. ( http://www.liberalslant.com/dh071603.htm )
unfortunately the evidence used for that intelligence was already proven to be a forgery (and not a good one at that) by the CIA.
QUOTE
To this day the Bristish still claim their information is correct. Therefore, since Bush did not lie in his SOTUA,
of course they stick by their original statement. do you even know what blair actually said? I do. here it is:
QUOTE
“Iraq’s known holdings of processed uranium are under IAEA supervision. But there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
from http://www.liberalslant.com/dh071603.htm
QUOTE
The Brits offered a vague, weak construction: “there is intelligence.” “Intelligence” is not to be confused with “confirmation,” “airtight evidence” or “proof.” If the past year has taught us anything, it is that “intelligence” about Iraq presented by the U.K. or U.S. is not to be confused with established fact. Yet the SOTU construction — “The British government has learned” — tells the viewer that our most trusted ally KNOWS that Saddam “recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
(no emphasis added, quote is as is)QUOTE
it's obvious that Clinton's lie was worse
do you not see the fallacy with this argument? you say bush never lied, then say clintons was worse, meaning that bush DID lie.
also, everyone is focused on just the uranium, why? bush stated they tried to get high strength tubes for making U-238, he stated they had 10,000 tonnes of bo-tox, 1000's of tonnes of VX, same with sarin, and anthrax. and he stated he knew where to find them. these were all lies.
ritter said they had destroyed between 95% to 98% of the weapons. he said "no other nation in history has been as disarmed as iraq. clinton states that it is possible the targets he hit in '98 may have destroyed the rest (cnn, larry king live, bob dole's 80th B-day show)
bush's lies outweigh clintons by so much it isn't funny.
from the american heritage dictionary-
lie:
(1)A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
(2)Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression (as bush did, as has been demostrated above)
Actually, President Bush had nothing to do with the making of the Cincinnati speech. Thats just another liberal assumption being spoken like a fact.
John Locke and Raimi are right, all there is against President Bush is conjecture and partisan accusations. Until it is established that Bush lied about anything, Clinton's lie will have to be deemed worse, and the thread should wait.
John Locke and Raimi are right, all there is against President Bush is conjecture and partisan accusations. Until it is established that Bush lied about anything, Clinton's lie will have to be deemed worse, and the thread should wait.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Jul 24 2003, 01:59 PM)
Actually, President Bush had nothing to do with the making of the Cincinnati speech. Thats just another liberal assumption being spoken like a fact.
Debunking a claim usually takes more than just saying so. Please provide support for this.
QUOTE
do you not see the fallacy with this argument? you say bush never lied, then say clintons was worse, meaning that bush DID lie.
I do not see how it is possible to debate the topic question without debating the question's premise. My statement was intended to make clear that by debating the premise I was still remaining on topic (having been chastised in the past for this). There really is no answer to the question because the question's premise (that Clinton and the Bush admin lied) is false.
QUOTE
unfortunately the evidence used for that intelligence was already proven to be a forgery (and not a good one at that) by the CIA.
Your statement is false (start impeachment hearings). One document included in the evidence was proven to be a forgery. This raised questions about the accuracy of the rest of the evidence but does not prove that the other information was not factual (which is why the British still believe the information to be correct).
QUOTE
clinton states that it is possible the targets he hit in '98 may have destroyed the rest
Be careful here, your supplying misleading information in order to prove your point (sure sounds like what everyone is saying Pres Bush did). Clinton's actual quote is
QUOTE
"At the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what [Saddam] had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it.
(Larry King Live)At this point I'm wondering if the inaccuracies in your post should invalidate all of the rest of the information you included. But I won't hold you to presidential standards and agree to think about the rest of the information you posted.
raimi, I didn't say he knew 100% he had gotten it I said
(emphasis added)
he said
which is what I said he said (it's called PARAPHASING)do you see ANYWHERE in that where I said he knew for sure they got the weapons? no, but bush refused to take this into consideration as to WHY the iraqi's couldn't prove they were destroyed. I don't appreciate being called a liar.
as to the intelligence, the main peice the british had was a forgery (and a crude on at that) and they STILL have not proven that they have more information! they are saying "well, we have other info as well, but you just have to take our word for it" the british government is full of liars, proven liars (45 minute launch ability, warehoses of bio/chem weapons etc...) and therefore have no credibilty. I will belive them when they provide corroborated and confirmed info. if they really had said info they would have come forward with it.
and that defense is starting to fall apart anyway:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000418.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/030710/137/25uud.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...2903938,00.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-re...q/s_144523.html
if you can provide credible sources to back up your claims I'm all ears.
QUOTE
clinton states that it is POSSIBLE the targets he hit in '98 may have destroyed the rest
(emphasis added)
he said
QUOTE
And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all;
which is what I said he said (it's called PARAPHASING)do you see ANYWHERE in that where I said he knew for sure they got the weapons? no, but bush refused to take this into consideration as to WHY the iraqi's couldn't prove they were destroyed. I don't appreciate being called a liar.
as to the intelligence, the main peice the british had was a forgery (and a crude on at that) and they STILL have not proven that they have more information! they are saying "well, we have other info as well, but you just have to take our word for it" the british government is full of liars, proven liars (45 minute launch ability, warehoses of bio/chem weapons etc...) and therefore have no credibilty. I will belive them when they provide corroborated and confirmed info. if they really had said info they would have come forward with it.
and that defense is starting to fall apart anyway:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000418.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/030710/137/25uud.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...2903938,00.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-re...q/s_144523.html
if you can provide credible sources to back up your claims I'm all ears.
Again, for those of you who still believe that the president didn't lie -
Washington post article.
quote from the article:
On an aside note: As these discoveries are being made known about the White House's knowledge of these forged documents - yet another distraction shows up to bury the news of the investigation (Saddam's sons) - - ...they keep waggin' the dog....
Washington post article.
quote from the article:
QUOTE
The latest turn came Tuesday, when deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and White House communications director Dan Bartlett revealed the existence of two previously unknown memos showing that Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet had repeatedly urged the administration last October to remove a similar claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
On an aside note: As these discoveries are being made known about the White House's knowledge of these forged documents - yet another distraction shows up to bury the news of the investigation (Saddam's sons) - - ...they keep waggin' the dog....
QUOTE
I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Unabomber, just as I don't believe President Bush lied in his SOTUA, I don't believe you lied in your post. You simply included information you believe to be accurate and you included the information that reinforced your point while omitting the information that didn't. No offense was intended, every poster here does this including myself. Believe it or not, even the President does it. It was an attempt to show the absurdity with which the president's statement has been scrutinized and to point out that one statement does not invalidate the rest of the argument.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 12 2003, 11:34 AM)
What about when Clinton had 3 chances to nab Osama Bin Laden?
What about the Bush family ties to the Carlyle group, and the Bin Laden family? Bush could have gotten rid of Bin Laden when his DAD was President, but since its all about cash....
QUOTE(Raimi @ Jul 24 2003, 02:45 PM)
QUOTE
I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Unabomber, just as I don't believe President Bush lied in his SOTUA, I don't believe you lied in your post. You simply included information you believe to be accurate and you included the information that reinforced your point while omitting the information that didn't. No offense was intended, every poster here does this including myself. Believe it or not, even the President does it. It was an attempt to show the absurdity with which the president's statement has been scrutinized and to point out that one statement does not invalidate the rest of the argument.
the difference is I OMITTED some things, but they were TRUE. bush said that the brits learned (as in knew for fact) that saddam was seeking uranium, and has been shown HERE the brits said no such thing. they said
QUOTE
"Iraq’s known holdings of processed uranium are under IAEA supervision. But there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
the article goes on to say:
QUOTE
The Brits offered a vague, weak construction: “there is intelligence.” “Intelligence” is not to be confused with “confirmation,” “airtight evidence” or “proof.” If the past year has taught us anything, it is that “intelligence” about Iraq presented by the U.K. or U.S. is not to be confused with established fact. Yet the SOTU construction — “The British government has learned” — tells the viewer that our most trusted ally KNOWS that Saddam “recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
please, do read the article. and as has been said earlier he stated right after the uranium claim that Iraq had sought high strength aluminum tubes for enriching uranium, but the IAEA (international ATOMIC energy agency) even said that those tubes were not suitable for such a purpose
QUOTE
ElBaradei(head of IAEA) and his teams concluded that the Iraqis intended touse the tubes for reverse engineering of rockets and no other projects.
from carnegie endowment for international peace PDF (adobe acrobat needed) or the HTML version.or what of his claims Iraq had huge fleets of UAV's? turned out there was one, and it was made with plywood and string.
he also said the according to an IAEA report Iraq was 6 months away from making a nuclear weapon. no such report existed!
and 11 days ago bush laid out a whopper: ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article4110.htm )
QUOTE
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power,
so he CONTINUES to lie!and the list could go on. bush's LIES about iraq far outweigh clintons. this goes beyond his state of the union address. why do republicans (and some dems) keep focusing on that alone? he lied in his SOTUA, his cincinnati speech, press conferences, on the side (like when getting of AF1 with the press around) and anytime he talked about Iraq.
if you don't even acknowledge he lied (try typing in "bush's lies +about Iraq" in google)
(edited to remove section jaime disapproved of and I admit, was inflammatory)
QUOTE(unabomber @ Jul 25 2003, 06:57 AM)
...you must be suffering disassociation from reality. turn off faux news and try getting in touch with reality 
Debate the merits of the arguments. Do not resort to name calling and mockery.
Understandably, it can be frustrating. In basic terms for me, as a simple peasant underling, when the bogus intelligence information was removed from previous speeches on the merit that it could not be proved and was so severely advised against in the speech 3 months before, stands to reason the President is not such an idiot that he forgot we couldnt prove it? or he is an idiot and forgot they removed it for good reason? Or he decided it would sway the decision to go to war and used it anyway. Come on. Make up your minds.
Hes either stupid, incompetant or a liar, you decide. There are really no other options in this scenario.
Those who are debating that Bush did not know, do you really believe it???!! or are you basically defending the war and its bigger ideals. Because the lies for going to war are all too evident. If some of you could say, yes he lied about the war, but it was worth it, it would be a lot more honest than defending the Bush Admin lies from the beginning and trying to make them true, despite the evidence that is SO in everyones face.
Hes either stupid, incompetant or a liar, you decide. There are really no other options in this scenario.
Those who are debating that Bush did not know, do you really believe it???!! or are you basically defending the war and its bigger ideals. Because the lies for going to war are all too evident. If some of you could say, yes he lied about the war, but it was worth it, it would be a lot more honest than defending the Bush Admin lies from the beginning and trying to make them true, despite the evidence that is SO in everyones face.
VP Cheney puts it pretty clearly in a speech yesterday. Here's an exerpt,
And here's the entire Cheney speech
QUOTE
Last October, the director of Central Intelligence issued a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's continuing programs of weapons of mass destruction. That document contained the consensus judgments of the intelligence community, based upon the best information available about the Iraqi threat.
The NIE declared, quote, "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade," end quote.
Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information or trying to wish it away would be irresponsible in the extreme.
The NIE declared, quote, "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade," end quote.
Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information or trying to wish it away would be irresponsible in the extreme.
And here's the entire Cheney speech
QUOTE
The President revises the speech to fit his info, which, in the Uranium case, he gets from the CIA, which he should trust because they are the intelligence gatherers
"gets" from the CIA? According to anybody not trying to save their collective a$$es, the CIA had to tell Bush NOT to use the uranium case more than once. He got nothing from the CIA. He USED something from the CIA. You've framed that point into a disingenuous argument.
Clinton has supported Bush in this war every step of the way. The only thing I've heard him disagree with was that Bush didn't work hard enough to get international support...still he says Bush had the right to attack Iraq.
This is just one more of those issues that make me like Clinton less and less the more time passes.
This is just one more of those issues that make me like Clinton less and less the more time passes.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.